There’s not long left to submit your entry to the Research Photography Competition. Submissions will be closing on Friday 27 January at 5pm.

We have already seen a number of fantastic images submitted from both our staff and student researchers, but there’s still time to submit your image. This a great opportunity to present your research that you’re either currently working on or have already completed. The competition allows your research to be showcased across BU and is a great addition to your portfolio.

We are happy to welcome our new post-doc on the VeggiEAT project Dr Vanessa Mello-Rodrigues.

Vanessa is a Registered Nutritionist and holds both a Ph.D. and Master degree in Nutrition from Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Vanessa’s research interests are mainly related to policy aspects of health promotion and nutrition, with attention to the prevention of childhood overweight and obesity through the promotion of healthy eating. She has been involved in projects related to different aspects of food and menu labelling, which were supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) and by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

Now the festivities are over and the new year is upon us, KEIT are looking forward to what 2017 brings and we already have a busy year ahead.

Research Communications

Our sixth edition of the Bournemouth Research Chronicle (BRC) will be published in early February. The chronicle features examples of the fantastic research coming from both our academics and students across BU.

Knowledge Exchange (KE)

Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF)

The latest round of HEIF funding is HEIF 5+1+1, and runs from 1 August 2016 until 31 July 2017. There are twelve projects currently live and more information on each project can be found using this link to the BU Research Blog. Subject areas are broad, ranging from forensics to environmental sciences to health apps, musical technologies and virtual sculpting tools. January 2017 marks the half-way stage of this current HEIF funding round. The results of HEIF 6 are due to be announced early in 2017.

After a short break, Cafe Scientifique is returning to the new year with Dr Sharon Docherty on Tuesday 7 February. ‘How well can you hang a picture frame?’ will be exploring how different age groups may perceive the concept of being ‘vertical’. Dr Docherty will also outline how this can be affected by clinical conditions, such as neck pain and diabetes. Cafe Scientifique will take place in Cafe Bosconova at 7:30pm.

Student Engagement

Now in its third year the Research Photography Competition is still open for submissions. The competition will be closing on Friday 27 January, at 5pm, so it’s not too late to submit.

14:Live is taking a break through January and will be returning with two session in February. The first is with ORI on 16 February and gives staff and students the chance to hear from ORI’s research project manager Shay Bahadori. Come along to Floor 5, Student Centre, at 14:00 to hear from ORI and get a chance to test out the Laser Speckle Contrast Imager (LSCI).

The 28 February will see Dr Heather Hartwell introduce the project FoodSMART, which will uses QR coding on your smartphone to provide nutritional information and personalised advice when eating out. Come along to Floor 5, Student Centre, at 14:00, to hear all about FoodSMART and get a chance to test out the prototype.

Research Impact

As part of the RKE Development Framework we’re starting off the new year with two impact workshops, which is open to both academics and postgraduate researchers. The workshops aim to help you explore the potential of your research impact and how you can develop your creative ideas to ensure your research is informed by society, for the benefit of society.

The fee of £200.00 includes two days with the course facilitators, refreshments and class materials. Please note that resources will be provided electronically and that accommodation and travel costs are not included.

The committee stage in the House of Lords starts on Monday. The list of proposed amendments stands at 85 pages. We will be keeping an eye and reporting on the progress of the bill and progress can be tracked on the new House of Lords pages here. The bill itself (if you need it for reference) is here. So here is a round up ahead of the debates next week

UUK blog and briefing 6th December raises the same 7 issues that they raised in the commons (which we support) -the briefing is attached. UUK also flagged three of these issues in a joint letter to the Guardian with GuildHE, calling for the Lords to amend the Bill to address probationary degree awarding powers, to stop the OfS validating degrees and to stop the government interfering in academic standards and course funding. Their 7 original issues were:

Ensuring the powers of the Office for Students and the Secretary of State are compatible with the principle of university autonomy

Separating ‘quality’ and ‘standards’ in the bill, and ensuring that academic standards continue to be owned by the sector

Protecting students, employers and the reputation of the sector by ensuring a suitably high bar to for new entrants

Strengthening checks and balances for giving and removing Degree Awarding Powers and University Title

Removing the ability for the OfS to validate degrees and clarifying its role as regulator

Ensuring the duties of the OfS reflects the diverse range of activities carried out by universities

Ensuring that the autonomy of the research councils is protected within the new UKRI structure.

The written evidence and transcripts of the Committee’s sittings are available on the Higher Education and Research Bill 2016-17 page of the Parliament website. This includes BU’s submission – we were one of only 11 HE institutions to submit individual responses (out of 63 sets of evidence). We did not attempt a comprehensive review as this was evidence submitted to the Public Bill Committee and not a consultation, so we addressed a selection of the relevant issues, but one of them was the way that the TEF approach muddles standards and quality – and these issues are noted in the Wonkhe blog on the difference between quality and standards. We were also concerned about the link between fees and the TEF, as noted, with other concerns, in our green paper response (see the VC’s blog for HEPI on this).

Amendments

This includes a number of government amendments, some of which are fairly technical (as happened in the House of Commons) and as in the commons there are a number of amendments that relate to things that are not covered in the Bill (and that the government will resist) – e.g. issues relating to immigration, student loans (Wes Streeting MP: Labour Lords will fight student loan repayment ‘scandal’), Syrian refugees, registering students on electoral registers, Sharia finance. Some of these amendments are very similar to those raised in the House of Commons – e.g. the OfS reporting on international student numbers. Several issues were previously raised, and dismissed, in the green paper process such as changing the name of the “Office for Students” to “Office for Higher Education” and suggesting that all registered providers should be subject to the same freedom of information requirements as universities are now. Changes relating to Brexit and immigration include “a condition that requires the governing body of the provider to collaborate with other registered higher education providers and with the OfS in the promotion of English higher education abroad through the GREAT Britain campaign, the British Council, or otherwise”.

New and interesting proposals include amendments to transfer all the powers of the Competition and Markets Authority relating to universities to the OfS, and to disapply the Prevent strategy.

There are some high level changes proposed– which reflect a great deal of sector concern, e.g. including provisions up front which state that universities are autonomous institutions which must uphold the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech. One amendment states that universities should not be “for profit” organisations.

There is a proposal to replace the TEF with ratings on a scale of 1-10 which “may only be awarded for each aspect of each course separately” and “may not be published as an average or otherwise summarised for a course or a provider”. Other TEF related proposals include suggestions about verifying the metrics that will be used (ensuring that they will be linked to teaching quality, statistically valid etc.) and that the TEF arrangements must be approved by Parliament. On this topic:

a blog was published by the VCs of the University of Essex and East Anglia yesterday which argues that the NSS is an important part of the TEF because it ensures that the student voice is part of the process.

Wonkhe report that Professor John Raftery, vice chancellor for London Metropolitan University, has written for the Telegraph on the TEF, calling for the metrics to include a measure for number of qualified teachers in universities – something BU also called for in our TEF consultation response.

An expert in dyslexia has written a blog for Wonkhe on potential benefits for disabled students as a result of the implementation of the Teaching Excellence Framework with its focus on “split” metrics.

There is a proposal for a joint committee to be established by UKRI and OfS which will look at various aspects of how the Bill is operating and the sector, such as the health of the higher education sector, work relating to equality of opportunity, the health of different academic disciplines, knowledge exchange, skills development (amongst other things).

There are some helpful proposals about the confidentiality of concerns about institutions that may be at risk of sanction by the OfS.

There are extensive proposals for amendments to the information collection and publication requirements for the OfS – including contact hours, mental health of students, academic freedom and freedom of speech,

There are also extensive proposals for amendments to the process and requirements for new alternative providers. See also:

On research structures the amendments are towards the back of the Bill.

I have noted above the reference to the OfS and UKRI working together, and there are other proposed changes that link the OfS and UKRI such as requiring the OfS to consult with UKRI before awarding research degree awarding powers.

There are proposals to require particular experience for people on the UKRI board (see the proposed amendments to Schedule 9).

One amendment requires UKRI to encourage and facilitate co-operation between UK and overseas education and research establishments, and there are amendments requiring UKRI to recognise institutional autonomy.

One amendment requires UKRI to recognise Research Council autonomy and subsidiarity in decision making. There is a proposal (in clause 95) to ensure that funding is allocated separately to each council, Innovate UK and Research England and cannot be varied without parliamentary approval.

Similar Brexit/immigration related amendments as for the OfS are proposed relating to reporting on overseas staff and students.

Do you have an incomplete paper that you’ve been sitting and can’t seem to finish? Have you recently presented at a conference, but haven’t written-up a paper out of your presentation yet? Did you get a rejection and are struggling to get motivated again? Or maybe you’ve written a couple chapters of your PhD and are hoping to turn one into a publication?

Whatever the scenario, CEMP’s new Publishing Partnership Initiative (PPI) can help you to collaborate with another researcher to turn your ideas into a viable REF-ready journal article. And did we mention, you can win a free dinner for two?

To launch the initiative, this workshop will introduce the Publishing Partnership Initiative and help you find a good match to develop your REF output. We will also discuss strategies and tips for working toward REF submissions:

11:00-11:15 Introductions and coffee

11:15-11:30 Welcome to the PPI scheme (Anna and Richard)

11:30-12:00 Hear No Evil, See No Evil: What you need to know about REF and the Sterne review (Julian & Dan J)

12:45-13:15 Academic Match.com: Finding the right journal and writing partner for your research output (Anna and Isa)

13:15-14:00 Catered planning lunch with our publishing partners

To participate: Send a 500+ word rough draft or outline of a potential research paper to afeigenbaum@bournemouth.ac.uk AND Richard rberger@bournemouth.ac.uk by Monday 23rd January 2017. This might be an abandoned draft, a conference version of a paper presentation or an outline for a possible research paper. At this stage, any draft you have might be gold, so don’t be shy!

Eat your Success! Partners who successfully submit a paper to a peer review journal within the 5 month time frame will receive a ‘dinner for two’ voucher to celebrate their success.*

*Voucher is worth up to £45.00. Does not cover alcoholic beverages.

We will aim to pair colleagues around expertise either in the same research area or in relation to the methodological approach. At least one partner will be accustomed to journal publishing and the REF process, as well as to the challenges facing us to find the time to research and write. In the first instance, this workshop is geared toward UoA 25, 34 and 36 entries (covering Education, Media Practice and Media Studies). For full details see: http://www.civicmedia.io/events-2/publishing-partnership-initiative/

*This project was initiated by Anna Feigenbaum and Richard Berger. It is supported by the UoA 25 development fund, CEMP, the Civic Media Hub & the Journalism Research Group.

In the final week of 2016 the journal Health Prospect published our editorial on the importance of introducing nursing CPD in Nepal [1]. This editorial is based on a collaborative study between BU, Liverpool John Moores University (LJUM), Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) in Nepal, Nepal Nursing Council (NNC), and the Nursing Association of Nepal (NAN). The BU part of the study is led by Dr. Catherine Angell based in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) and funded by a small grant from BU’s Centre for the Excellence in Learning. Two of our co-authors from LJMU Dr. Bibha Simkhada and Prof. Padam Simkhada are also Visiting Faculty at BU. The project is a true FUSION project as the Research, will inform Education (in the form of CPD) which will in turn improve Practice (of the many thousands of nurses in Nepal).

Health Prospect is an Open Access journal and therefore freely available for any one to read online.

The Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Vinney, has a new blog on the HEPI (the Higher Education policy Institute) website on research and teaching and how REF and the TEF work together, with some proposals for change in how the REF is implemented in 2021, and views on subject level TEF, which is proposed for year 3 (informal consultation has already started).

And on Thursday afternoon the HEFCE REF consultation on the implementation of the REF 2021 was published – with a response date of 17 March 2017. The proposals incorporate the principles from the Stern Review. You can read the background on our BU Policy & Public Affairs page on the Stern Review. Wonkhe have a useful summary of the proposals and David Sweeney from HEFCE has written for Wonkhe on why the sector needs to engage in the consultation – contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you would like to be involved in preparing our response, we will be working on this with RKEO.

Wonkhe have published an interesting analysis of the TEF metrics and benchmarking and how they work complete with data about the current likely outcomes of the TEF. Wonkhe report that Professor John Raftery, vice chancellor for London Metropolitan University, has written for the Telegraph on the TEF, calling for the metrics to include a measure for number of qualified teachers in universities – something BU also called for in our TEF consultation response.

An expert in dyslexia has written a blog for Wonkhe on potential benefits for disabled students as a result of the implementation of the Teaching Excellence Framework with its focus on “split” metrics.

The report found significant differences between poorer children and wealthier children living in the same neighbourhood with the same GCSE results. This Government press release states that “bright children from poorer backgrounds are far less likely to go to university or study A levels that could get them into top universities than their wealthier counterparts – even if they live in the same neighbourhood and achieve similar results at GCSE.”

Some other key findings include:

24% of children eligible for free school meals attend higher education compared to 42% of children from more privileged backgrounds.

Poorer children are also twice as likely to drop out of education at 16 and are more than half as likely to study A levels that could get them into a top university.

around a quarter of the progression gap – the different choices made by children after leaving school – is purely down to social background.

White British students are far less likely to go to university than ethnic minority students – Indian (72%), Pakistani/Bangladeshi (53%), Black (57%) and White British (36%). Participation differences between White British and other ethnic groups who live in the same neighbourhood and with the same GCSE attainment are even more pronounced.

White British students are more likely to drop out of post-16 education than ethnic minority students – Indian (3%), Pakistani/Bangladeshi (8%), Black (7%) and White British (10%).

Female pupils are 8% more likely to attend university than males (44% versus 36%). However, although female participation rates at top selective universities are slightly higher (10% versus 9% for boys); they are less likely to attend these universities than a boy from the same neighbourhood with the same GCSEs.

Education Select Committee Inquiry into the effect of Brexit on staff and students in HE

Neil Carmichael MP, Chair of the Education Committee, said: “This written evidence from university leaders, academics, businesses and others highlights the degree of concern about the fate of UK universities post-Brexit. The evidence raises a variety of issues relating to freedom of movement, including the prospects for recruiting EU students post-Brexit and the future rights of EU staff to live and work in the UK. Concerns are also raised about how to maintain the UK as an attractive destination for EU and international students, about the financial viability of universities, and the need to ensure Britain can continue to compete on the international stage as a provider of world-class university education.

In our inquiry, we are determined to examine the opportunities for higher education post-Brexit and consider what the Government’s priorities should be for the sector going into the negotiations with the EU. It’s crucial that we don’t allow Brexit to become a catastrophe for our university sector. We look forward to testing the evidence and questioning university leaders, academics, students, unions, and Ministers in our public evidence sessions in the New Year.”

Higher Education and Research Bill reaches the Lords

The HE and Research Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 7th December and has now moved to the Lords Committee stage. Research Professional have a summary. You can read the full debate in Hansard here and a summary by DODs here.

At the committee stage amendments will be tabled and discussed in great detail. The Bill has only had government amendments approved so far, and there has been a lot of criticism (of and by everyone) of the level of scrutiny so far – with time being severely limited in committee and third reading stage in the Commons, with all opposition amendments rejected. But as you saw from my update on the third reading in the Commons, the debate there centred largely on Brexit, student visas, TEF, and loans (none of which are actually covered by the Bill), with very little actual focus on the bill itself.

It is expected that the Lords, while they will discuss those issues as well, will also focus on the bill itself, particularly on the changes to the research landscape, but also on degree awarding powers and other aspects of autonomy – and that was reflected in the debate, as well as discussions about the TEF.

UUK have update their briefing note to focus on what they want from the Lords – read it here – it lists the same 7 issues as for the House of Commons third reading, so it is interesting to see that they have flagged three in particular in a joint letter to the Guardian with GuildHE, calling for the Lords to amend the Bill to address probationary degree awarding powers, to stop the OfS validating degrees and to stop the government interfering in academic standards and course funding.

The UCU undergraduate application and admission survey tackles the disparity between predicted and actual A level grades achieved. It reports only 16% of predictions (2013-15) were correct with the majority of students predicted higher than they achieve, identifies differences in under/over prediction depending on the type of institution, and notes differences surrounding disadvantaged students. The Guardian quotes Sally Hunt (UCU) “this report is a damning indictment of a broken system” and references the underpinning study by Dr Gill Wyness (University College London Institute of Education) “it seems highly inefficient to continue with a system in which life-changing decisions are made, and scarce university places are allocated, on the basis of inaccurate information”. THE pick up on the socio-economic angle of high achieving disadvantaged students who are under predicted and state it may be skewing their access to highly selective universities. UCU are calling for an overhaul and recommend a post-qualification admissions system. .

Something a bit different

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has decided to create an open opportunity for the science community and the wider public to suggest science and technology areas for scrutiny. Inquiry: My Science Inquiry

Inquiry proposals will be considered on the basis of merit, and the Committee would be interested to receive proposals for work in areas that might otherwise escape its attention. Proposals should outline in less than 200 words the nature of the issue that the Committee should explore, why it deserves attention, and how Government policy in this area could be developed or improved. A selection of the proposals will be shortlisted for an opportunity to give a 10-minute pitch to the Committee in person at a public ‘Dragons’ Den’-style session to be held in the New Year. Please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you are interested in contributing – the deadline is 4th January 2017.

Sociology, as an emerging discipline, developed within the crucible of historical studies of changing lives, transforming events and a search for alternative ways to understand history. We see this in the works of such illustrious progenitors of sociology as Tocqueville, Marx, Durkheim and Weber but it has itself been marginalised, even hidden, as social, political and historical events have unfurled and a turn to biography has displaced the historical. Furthermore, historical sociology has taken something of a battering since John H Goldthorpe decried its relevance towards the end of the last century. However, it is perhaps this railing against the historical which has lent itself to a resurgence through such key figures as Barrington Moore, Charles Tilly, Theda Skocpol and Shmuel Eisenstadt amongst others. But what of its place within contemporary undergraduate sociological education?

In an attempt to introduce today’s BU undergraduates to the important interdisciplinary fusion of the social, the biographical and the historical we have developed an innovative exploration of the histories of social welfare that students take in their second year of full time study. This involves the broad study of social and political welfare initiatives through to the Poor Law, its reform and the implementation of the Welfare State, retrenchment and contemporary attacks on welfare and those who claim benefits. So what? You may say. This is similar to most programmes of study charting welfare policy. However, two specific aspects mark out this module. The first is the assessment, reported elsewhere, which requires groups to explore the experiences of characters in specific historical periods through the construction of a narrative. This allows students to enter into the social and political worlds of individuals in need of social welfare and support.

The second innovative aspect relates to the continuing strands running through our explorations – we take Richard Lachmann’s approach to historical sociology to understand how the present, and future, is contingent on the past. Throughout the course, we examine seemingly inconsequential events leading to change, and why ‘transformative’ events, such as the introduction of the British Welfare State in 1948, occur when they do. Moreover, we embed this learning in a hands-on fieldtrip to the historic market town of Sherborne. Though a visit to the historic St Johns’ (two of them) almshouses, the architecturally stunning abbey, students are exposed to the religious beginnings of charity and alms, the turn to the Parish and the body politic in dispensing poor relief and an appreciation of the overt discrimination between deserving and undeserving. Indeed, they experience that the ‘poor are always with us’ and also they are stratified in society by those with power. As one student stated:

The trip … showed us how throughout history policies have changed, yet some have remained the same as 600 years ago. It made us appreciate and value history more. We learned how the welfare state changed with time to adjust to the environment and the social conditions (war, economic state, health condition of people etc).

The students undertaking this trip have experienced the importance of an historical sociological approach to social welfare policy and application marrying this with the contemporary focus on biography and merging analytic thought, and an appreciation of the affective. This was particularly evident in discussion of the contemporary foodbank provision which religious and lay people undertake to offset some of the hardships experienced by those requiring benefits today:

I also found it interesting how the food bank is run. I think it is so lovely that the people of Sherborne deliver the food bags to the people who cannot come to collect them. I have never heard of anywhere else that does this before and think it shows just how close a community can be and that we should all work together to help each other.

This takes historical sociology into a contemporary arena in which the biographical is included, and offers the students a chance to bring in the personal and to reflect on experiences whilst acknowledging the historical and the structural:

I was really surprised to find out that there are people still living in the alms houses today! I was not expecting that. I found it really interesting how there are still so many similarities to how it was ran when it began to how it is ran now. Before the trip my understanding was that to live in the alms houses wouldn’t have been a nice experience but from the trip I was able to understand that it was actually built with the intention to help people and that is exactly what it did and still does today. I made connections with the histories of social policy and welfare when I understood that the people who came to live in the alms houses were the ‘deserving poor’.

Jonathan Parker (Department of Social Sciences and Social Work), Nezhat Habib and Bonnie Brown (students on BA Sociology and Social Policy programme)

The Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Vinney, has a new blog on the HEPI (the Higher Education policy Institute) website on research and teaching and how Stern and the TEF work together.

Brexit:

Research Professional note that: In oral answers to questions on 1 December “Robin Walker, the minister in charge of higher education in the Department for Exiting the European Union, told MPs that he has taken evidence from a number of organisations including Universities UK, the royal academies and the Russell Group on the implications of EU withdrawal for universities”. “The sector strongly supports our ambition to create an environment in which the UK as a whole can continue to be a world leader in research, science and the tertiary education sector,” he said. Research Professional also note that David Jones, another junior minister in the same department, added in a written answer that ministers “will aim to visit every sector and every region of the UK” to hear their views on EU withdrawal, as part of a wider approach to build “national consensus around our negotiating position”.

In another piece of welcome transitional news, the government has confirmed that EU students starting courses in 2017/18 can apply for Research Council Studentships, and funding will last for the whole of their courses.

Graduate outcomes:

The Department for Education have released data on graduate destinations from the Longitudinal Educations Outcome (LEO) dataset. This is made up of information from the National Pupil Database (NPD), the Individualised Learner Record (ILR), the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data (HMRC), The National Benefit Database, the Labour Market System and Juvos, the unemployment research database. This is different from the DLHE (Destination of Leavers in Higher Education) because it takes a much longer term view (DLHE is currently at 6 months after graduation).

The data released today is “experimental” and looks at the employment and earnings outcomes of those graduating with an undergraduate degree in 2008/09 from an English higher education institution (HEI). It looks at outcomes one, three and five years after graduation. Data are split by subject studied and graduate characteristic (sex, ethnicity, age, home region and prior attainment at A level). Employment outcomes are also provided for each HEI. (A further release is scheduled for spring 2017 covering outcomes by each subject for each institution.

There will be plenty of analysis and commentary to follow – UUK were very quick off the mark with a blog “Graduate earnings data is welcome but doesn’t tell full story” – noting that it doesn’t cover self-employed students (with a disproportionate effect on arts graduates) or those who are working abroad and do not separate part-time work or address regional variations. However, despite these limitations, the data will no doubt provides interesting context for the TEF amongst other things.

Schools:

The Ofsted 15/16 Annual Report outlines improved school judgements with ‘considerable’ benefits for children under age 11, however the North/South divide has widened. Concerns are expressed regarding the quality of technical and vocational education and training alongside ‘serious knowledge and skills gaps’ which threaten the competitiveness of the UK economy, further exacerbated by Brexit. This is interesting in the context of the schools consultation, which closes on 16th December – a Guardian article concludes that this is a complicated and risky area for universities.

Nursing degree apprenticeships:

A new nursing degree apprenticeship was announced on 30 November as part of the government commitment to create 100,000 apprenticeships within the NHS by 2020, and make up to 40,000 more nurses available to prevent rota gaps. The new nursing associate role will be hands on and expected to free up existing nurses to lead patient care decisions. Successful completion of the nursing associate apprenticeship can count towards a nursing degree and lead to registered nurse status.

The apprenticeship aims to open up a nursing career to people from all backgrounds, improving diversity within the workforce, through the earn whilst you learn model. The government envisages up to 1,000 nursing apprentices per year, starting from September 2017, with a flexible and progressive training model which accounts for previous qualifications and experience. The nursing apprenticeship standards are detailed here.

The Royal College of Nursing response is wary of creating a two-tier system, refers to the past where students were seen as ‘nursing on the cheap’ and stresses the importance of would-be nurses having a graduate level education to gain the knowledge and skills required for 21st century health care.

Government grant standards

The much criticised anti-lobbying clause was put on hold earlier this year (read more here) – and the government have today issued their new standards guidance for government grants. The new guidance confirms that researchers can communicating research and inform policy, including responding to consultations and select committee enquiries, and contributing expert scientific advice to inform government policy.

Teaching Excellence Framework

And finally – the Chair of the TEF panel, Chris Husbands (VC of Sheffield Hallam) has written on Wonkhe – busting 5 myths about TEF. The myths he is busting are:

The TEF will push universities for widening participation

The TEF is only about metrics

The provider statement is all about explaining away the metrics (he’s like them to be celebratory)

The TEF is biased and pre-ordained

Student views do not count

For those of you interested in catching up on the TEF, Jane is running a workshop with Professor Debbie Holley from the Centre for Excellence in Learning on Friday 9th December

The latest list of committee inquiries is here. There is a new one on closing the STEM skills gap, and one on the role of education in mental health for young people – please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you want to respond to any of these.

This work, which resulted from research carried out during the FIF funded MADRIGAL project, examines the perspective of DRM from the perspective of content creators using qualitative socio-legal analysis.

In addition to this work, we were also invited to write an extended version of this paper for SCRIPTed, which is currently in press.

CMC’s Promotional Cultures and Communication Centre (PCCC) is delighted to announce that the recent research project they undertook for Exterion Media won ‘Best Research Initiative’ at last week’s Media Research Group Awards. The MRG is the industry group for research professionals working in media related roles and is a great showcase for the work we do here.

The project was titled ‘The Mood of the Underground’ and undertaken in partnership with COG Research, a leading independent research agency. It comprised of a number of elements: a literature review undertaken by PCCC- CMC; a proposed approach recommended by CMC; primary research completed by PCCC-CMC and COG, and delivery of the final debrief written by PCCC-CMC and COG.

I just wanted to share some good news, I have just found out from Edinburgh University Press that just after a few months of the hardback release of my book Straight Girls and Queer Guys: The Hetero Media Gaze in Film and Television (that was written while on study leave, funded by Fusion) that they are going to bring it out in paperback. As we all know getting your academic book published in paperback is not necessarily an easy task. Many publishers want to publish in hardback as the first edition, as this achieves a higher value of sales when offering the books to libraries. Also I have to confess myself that a hardback edition often is a handsome prospect, as the product may well last longer, and you can put in a place of pride on your bookshelf collection. That said, a paperback edition is very desirable, as students might be able to afford their own copy, and maybe general audiences might take interest. Some publishers leave it a while before they will consider the prospect of a paperback edition. For example my second book Gay Identity, New Storytelling and The Media originally came out in hardback edition, and it took almost three years before they considered a paperback edition. This however was not an easy prospect, I had to argue why the book should come out in paperback, including collating reviews that were made of the book, and also finding lecturers and teachers that were using the book in university or schools, and then presenting affidavits. At the same time sometimes you do get a paperback edition as a first edition. I was fortunate that my first book (way back in 2007) Documenting Gay Men, Identity and Performance in Reality Television and Documentary Film did actually come out in paperback, and I remember the excitement in seeing a copy of my very first book in this form, thinking of high sales and a wide readership. Whilst this book might not have achieved the attention that I thought it would, I am very excited that it seems to be used widely in education, as every now and then I get payments for photocopying use of that very book from the publishers themselves. Roll on a few years, and some eight books later, which includes my most recent book Pedro Zamora, Sexuality and AIDS Education: The Autobiographical Self, Activism and The Real World which I understand may well come out in paperback, often it is hard to come to terms with expectations in publishing form/output. For example one of my main concerns, rightly or wrongly, is that I possibly over value the notion of the ‘hard copy’ over the E-Book. Also I do see a return to the hard copy, particularly evident if you go into HMV (or even some supermarkets) and you see the proliferation of Vinyl. From Taylor Swift and One Directon to Daft Punk, contemporary popular music artists are revisiting this wonderful hardcopy form. Concerning academic books, probably the best compromise is having both the prestigious hardcopy (hardback) alongside the affordable hardcopy (paperback), working alongside the virtual copy (E-book). This meets expectations and pleasures in cultural form – which maybe connects to nostalgia, at the same time keeping an eye on a changing word, that thrives on access and sharing.

Dr Sascha Dov Bachmann, Associate Professor in International Law (BU) and War Studies (FHS), has been appointed as reviewer to The Estonian Research Council (ETAg) to contribute his expertise to the evaluation of Mobilitas Pluss top researcher grant applications.

ETAg is the sole provider of financing for basic research in Estonia, both for research teams and individual researchers, on the basis of open public competition.

The complexities of multiculturalism as a social ontology and as a political discourse have taken a rapid and alarming turn to the right in a political moment of increasing social turbulence on issues that revolve around national identity, ethnicity and religion. It is therefore timely, if regrettably so, that the second edition of Islam and Social Work makes its debut this month.

The first volume went to press in 2008, in my first year at BU, and my co-authors and I were overwhelmed when the book was showered with positive reviews. Regarded as not only the best, but the sole European text on this conspicuously important topic, it was also viewed as having no counterpart in the Global North (where the subject of social work and minority ethnic groups has been a dominant theme in the social work literature for decades). Since then it has been regularly cited and I been privileged to have anonymously reviewed dozens of papers on Islamic interpretations of social work practice. I have learned that Western social work is no longer the epicentre of practice – there are other worlds out there. I feel that this earlier book was, if nothing else, pivotal to opening the door much wider to be able to hear from our Muslim social work colleagues around the world, whose practice can challenge the restrictive, bureaucratised and therefore often inhuman professional processes in the UK

Strangely, however, over the years, despite the world having changed so very much since in terms of the shifting geo-political axes of power, the rise and fall of despotic regimes, the call for accountability of Western leaders implicated in invasion of Gulf nations, the Arab Spring, global terrorism, Al-Qaeda and later the monstrous birth of imploding Daesh – no one has produced a text to supersede the old first edition. And so, reader, we, Fatima Husain, Basia Spalek and I decided to produce the 2nd edition, which has been fully revised and updated, rewritten virtually from scratch, and I believe we have produced a book that is specific in detail, expansive in scope and completely international in outlook.

We hope that this will be a text that is the first port of call for all social work students across the globe who are interested in learning more about competent and sensitive practice with Muslim service user and client groups across the lifespan, as well as discovering the many beauties and wise profundities that are embedded, but often overlooked, in the youngest of the Abrahamic religions, Islam.

BU academic Dan Franklin and PhD student David Hartnell presented research in Wuhan, China during the 10th ICTC last week. Attracting about 350 delegates, and sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the conference was concerned with the growing problem of toxic cyanobacteria in freshwater resources and the ways in which ecological and health consequences can be reduced. Toxic cyanobacteria are a particular problem in China, where they have contaminated public drinking water supplies creating a serious public health issue. Dan and Dave gave 4 presentations at the conference on work carried out with BU colleagues Ian Chapman, Su Chern Foo, Eddie McCarthy and Prof. Genoveva Esteban. Dr. Andy Turner from the government biotoxin labs at CEFAS, Weymouth, an important collaborator on the BU work, also presented at the conference. The conference was a great success and enabled meetings with important researchers in the field from around the world. Dan and Dave would like to thank BU for funding some of the expenses of the trip.

Ever wondered what wildlife we have on campus? Volunteer students and staff from the Dept. of Life & Environmental Science Green team are initiating a series of Student Environment Research Team (SERT) projects to find out and you can join in. We will help monitor the successful use wildlife is making of the habitats, nesting boxes and wild food resources that are being created on campus. The wildlife- friendly work is being spearheaded by the Estates Team, led by Dr Neil Smith and supported by the Biodiversity Action Plan Group.

There is a chance to get involved in a bit of campus habitat creation yourself this week if you like – join us this Friday at noon to help plant flower bulbs around the Fusion building. The bulbs have been chosen for both their wildlife and aesthetic value. Estates have bought the bulb and the planting design has been developed by a SERT of six students for Ecology & Wildlife Conservation BSc mentored by Damian Evans and Anita Diaz. See which bulbs here – bulbs-for-fusion-building-planting

Join us if you can and if you’d like to get involved with campus biodiversity creation and monitoring in some other way please contact Damian Evans devans@bournemouth.ac.uk

If you are still searching for some inspiration for Festival of Learning 2017, you can find our previous blog post here with some suggestions for engaging events. But most importantly, make sure you come along to one of our drop-in ‘Support for developing your idea sessions’ and talk to us! Additionally, we’re also offering a bookable training session for you to find out more about ‘Developing a public engagement event’. Please book your place via OD.

You may have already planned your event and now looking for ways of making it more appealing to members of the public. Regardless of the stage of event planning that you are at, we have a few extra ideas to give your event a boost!

The forefront of gene therapy

This event was a presentation from two experts Michael Linden and Nick Clarke, exploring how viruses can be used as tools to replace or repair faulty genes. To boost the interest of the audience and get them more engaged, the academics used an interactive voting system. Through the presentation they had some fun questions for the audience, related to genetics in general but not necessarily to the actual research. Examples of questions that captured audience’s attention were:

What percentage of genes do we share with a cabbage?

What percentage of genes do we share with bananas?

You may be surprised to know that humans share 50% of genes with bananas and 45% with cabbage.

Antarctic ice shelves

During this presentation Bernd Kulessa and Suzanne Bevan shared their tales from ten years of working in Antarctica. To give the audience a better idea of what life in the frozen wilderness looks like, the academics used not only photographs, but also 3D google maps. The maps show all of the stops they made on the journey to Antarctica, which not only added different dimension to the talk but also made it more personal.

The secret life of animals

How do you track whales diving deep underwater or birds flying high above us? Rory Wilson has developed pioneering electronic tags that allow researchers to monitor movement, behaviour, energy exposure, temperature and feeding patterns of hard-to-observe animals. Sounds interesting, but how do you translate these readings in simplified language to ensure your audience stays engaged? You simply organise for someone in penguin costume to copy the movement readings of actual penguin, while planking on a chair!

These events took place as part of the British Science Festival in Swansea, 2016.